I really only want to be a theologian of the Word. I realize the trend out there among guys and gals who take theology seriously is to pursue advanced studies in some sort of theological trajectory that has at its base much to do with philosophical underpinnings; whether that be directly or indirectly (think of the Post Reformed orthodox for example, their theological program, even with all the surrounding biblical citations is funded deeply by Aristotelian philosophy; not just materially but methodologically). Personally, if I believed this was the only way to be a theologian I would stop such pursuits immediately. This is why Martin Luther (Karl Barth and Thomas Torrance) is so appealing to me; he was dead set on being a theologian of the Word. He offered stringent critique of the Aristotelian theology of his day, as that was primarily mediated through Thomas Aquinas and the Roman Catholic church, and I see no reason why that critique should stop. It’s always a seductive temptation for the thinking type Christian to push deeply into the analytics of smart people, but for Luther, and for me, this usually only produces a theology of Glory. Geoffrey Bromiley offers a good word on Luther here:

With his concentration on God’s Word, Luther finds himself in almost unavoidable antithesis to philosophy. This comes out most clearly in relation to Romans 8:19. Here Paul’s theological or eschatological view of creation contrasts sharply with the philosophical or metaphysical view. Problems of essence, accident, activity, and motion have no importance for Paul. What counts is the expectation of creation and, even more so, what it expects.

On this basis Luther feels constrained to speak out against philosophy and to turn us to scripture. Having spent time in philosophical studies, he has come to regard them as “the study of vanity and perdition.” If we must engage in them, our concern should be “to treat them as we do when we learn worthless skills to destroy them and study errors to refute them.” At most they can help us to learn how to speak with those who are trained in them. But “it is high time that we undertake new studies and learn Jesus Christ and him crucified.”

Philosophy deals with the “mechanics” of creation and not its goal. The supreme folly of philosophy is to extol the knowledge of that very creation which is sad about itself. Only a fool laughs at one who is crying and says that he sees him happy. This is precisely what philosophers do. “With a marvelous display of power” they “derive a happy science out of a sad creation.” One can only conclude that “whoever searches into the essence and action of creation rather than its groaning and expectation is without doubt a fool and a blind man.” Theologians of the Word will take another path, for they realize, as philosophers do not, that “creatures are also a creation of God.[1]

Give me a hermeneutic over a metaphysic any day; and call the regulative reality of that hermeneutic, Jesus Christ, who cannot be reduced even to a regulative principle, but who indeed is a person who I can and do talk with as I read His Holy Scripture.

I know it’s trendy to be an analytic theologian, a neo-post reformed orthodox theologian, and other types of theologians who appeal heavily to some sort of philosophical apparatus; but along with Luther I think that this all reduces to his so called theology of Glory. At the end of the day it is only the Word of the LORD that will endure forever; as theologians why not do theology that is premised directly upon the Word of God rather than the word of men? Let God be true and every man a liar.

[1] Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Historical Theology: An Introduction (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978), 213.

Remember: If you’re clicking through to this post from Facebook I am taking a break from FB (but my posts still stream through to FB); so if you’d like to interact, make a comment in the thread right here at the blog.